Mrs Rebecca Jones v Primark Stores Limited — 2026

The tribunal struck out Rebecca Jones's claims against Primark Stores Ltd for indirect sex discrimination, ordinary unfair dismissal, failure to comply with a flexible working request and breach of contract under Rule 38, finding that the claims as pleaded had no reasonable prospect of success. Jones did not attend the preliminary hearing. The judge considered her written representations and heard the respondent's submissions before deciding the applications.

Jones complained that she could not work early starts because of childcare and transport difficulties, and that those hours had not been disclosed before induction. The tribunal found that an offer email dated 20 September 2025 expressly set out 6am starts and that Jones's reply accepted the offer. It therefore rejected her assertion that she first learned of those start times at induction on 26 September 2025.

For indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal found that the pleading did not connect the start-time requirement with disadvantage because of sex or identify it as a provision, criterion or practice with which fewer women could comply. It considered the authorities cautioning against striking out discrimination claims, but found no central factual dispute requiring a full hearing and regarded the pleading defects as fundamental. Ordinary unfair dismissal failed because Jones lacked the qualifying service required by section 108 ERA. The tribunal also found no pleading or evidence that she had made a statutory flexible working request meeting section 80F(2) ERA.

The tribunal refused leave to amend the claim to allege automatically unfair dismissal under section 104C ERA, expand indirect discrimination and add victimisation. Applying Chandhok and Selkent, it found that the proposed changes introduced new matters rather than merely relabelling the original pleading. No draft amended pleading or protected act supporting victimisation had been supplied. The tribunal found the proposed claims out of time, rejected the explanations for delay and held that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent. It declined to extend time under the just and equitable test for discrimination or the reasonably practicable test for unfair dismissal.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded by consent. Jones was awarded £31.62 gross for attending induction on 26 September 2025, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions. She was ordered to provide her bank details confidentially within 14 days of the judgment being sent. Interest would not accrue until 14 days after she complied.

Primark sought costs after the tribunal announced its decisions. Counsel reported solicitors' costs of £13,500 and a hearing fee of £1,600 plus VAT. These were costs sought, not awards made. The tribunal deferred the application to a separate hearing so Jones could respond and her means could be assessed, ordering disclosure of her income and means within 21 days of the judgment being sent.